I just want to remind the member that when a member is speaking, no member shall interrupt him or her except to raise a point of order. I have heard interruptions from both sides of the House.

I would remind people that they had an opportunity to either speak on the issue or ask questions on the issue. Therefore, I would appreciate it if they would respect members who have the floor so that they can complete their speeches.

Madam Speaker, I understand that passions run high, but it is time to actually come clean and we are going to do that tomorrow night.

When we have the vote on the bill tomorrow night, there will be a call that essentially asks whether each member is a feminist or is not a feminist. If members stand up and vote for the bill, they are feminists. If they stand up and say nay to the bill, they are not feminists.

Now there are plenty of folks on that side of the House, the Conservatives, who say that they are not feminists. That is fine, and I actually respect that, because at least they are telling us the truth. However, on this side of the House, we are having all kinds of rhetoric from the Prime Minister and cabinet that they are feminists, yet we had the Minister of Democratic Institutions stand up saying that she is not going to vote for the bill.

If members can believe it, we had the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women stand up in the House and say that she is not going vote for the bill, without giving any alternatives as to how we move from 26% of women elected in this place. I have to say that it is greatly disappointing.

There are many groups in society that support the bill. We have Leadnow, Samara, major labour unions, and all kinds of folks. I am sorely disappointed with what I am hearing from the other side of the House. I hope the backbench will rise up and help this cabinet do the right thing.

Madam Speaker, I guess I get to continue my previous speech, because this adjournment proceeding is on the debate with the Parliamentary Secretary for the Status of Women.

This debate arose when the Minister of Democratic Institutions and the parliamentary secretary supposedly had some kind of legal judgment that said that my private member's bill was unconstitutional. I have here in my hand a memorandum from the House of Commons law clerk and parliamentary counsel that says that not only is my private member's bill, Bill C-237, the candidate gender equity act, constitutional, it actually would enhance the charter and help move us toward the goal of supporting gender equality.

Bill C-237 is an important move forward in the fight to bring gender parity to the House of Commons. With a mere 26% of MPs sitting in the House being women, we are far away from having gender parity. In fact, we are ranked 64th in the world when it comes to this certain characteristic of our House.

It is extremely disappointing. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary for the Status of Women the question in the House of Commons to get clarification on why they are opposing my bill. They do not have any ideas as to how we can increase the number of women in the House. They have just been trying to put up a smokescreen to stop my private member's bill. That is extremely disappointing.

We are in desperate need of some kind of legislative change here in the House. The bill I put forward is an incentive. It is not a quota. It uses existing funding that is provided to parties by Elections Canada. It uses that money as an incentive for parties to run more women candidates.

We know from the research that we need more women candidates to have more women MPs. That is just a simple conclusion.

The reason we do not have more women candidates is that parties simply block women from becoming candidates for political parties. I have been studying this for 20 years. I did my Ph.D. at the London School of Economics on this. We found in one study of Canadian legislators that when women are in head-to-head competitions in nomination contests, women are six times less likely than men to win, simply because of bias within the parties.

I just wanted to rise to say that the bill I put forward is constitutional. I have documentation, which I would be happy to table or to show to anyone who is interested in seeing it.

I would also like to hear, from the parliamentary secretary, why they said they had legal advice, when they actually did not have it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising that question this evening.

We are committed to promoting gender parity in our public institutions and all aspects of civic life, and I am very pleased to talk about this issue.

Our government made a firm commitment to promoting gender parity in public life. That commitment is reflected in our gender-balanced cabinet and the mandate letters that call on ministers to promote parity within the federal government.

Gender parity is our goal, but my colleague's proposal to legislate quotas is not the way to achieve that goal. There are three reasons for that.

First, while the government supports the goal of gender parity in Canadian politics, the mandatory quota in this bill is problematic on several fronts with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the most significant of which is how it would affect the smallest of our political parties.

Under this bill, a party that has just one male candidate or one female candidate will necessarily have 100% disparity between the sexes, resulting in a 22.5% reduction in reimbursement. The major political parties have the resources to adapt to that, but the parties that run just a few candidates and would be eligible for a reimbursement would be disadvantaged.

What is more, this bill creates political and financial reasons to refuse to nominate qualified candidates because of their gender. Accordingly, the bill limits independent candidates on the one hand, and independent parties on the other hand.

They are limited not only in their choice of candidates, but also in their position on gender equality. For example, if a party composed only of women were created to increase women's participation in our democratic system, those women would be penalized by this bill.

A second concern I have with this bill relates to transgendered candidates, as there is no mention of non-binary candidates in the bill. The government has taken a strong stance on gender identity and expression and has introduced legislation that would explicitly protect the rights of non-binary Canadians. In this vein, it would be inconsistent to support a bill that fails to recognize the transgendered community. This bill would reaffirm the notion of binary gender identity and in doing so it would exclude transgendered people. It would ignore transgendered people altogether, and we do not do that in Canada.

Last, in addition to these concerns, I believe it is simply premature to adopt a gender parity measure designed for the first past the post system. Our government has committed to reforming our current electoral system. As the voting system for the next election is still unknown, it is not logical to impose a legislated gender quota for a first past the post voting system. In a first past the post system, gender parity among party candidates does not ensure gender parity in the House of Commons if women candidates are not run in winnable ridings.

Madam Speaker, I am sure the parliamentary secretary will go back to her cabinet meeting tomorrow and get a big slap on the back for putting up another smokescreen about my bill. Of course, the member knows it is not a quota; it is an incentive system. Of course, she knows that the 10% threshold is in there specifically for non-binary candidates. It is just astounding to me that the member could be the parliamentary secretary for the status of women and not support this bill. It is just beyond me. Moreover, her lack of any suggestions as to how we could have more than 26% of the House made up of women is surprising. It really is astounding that the member has picked partisanship over being a feminist.

That is too bad, because tomorrow night we are going to have a vote, and then in 36 months when we have another election, she will look back on her career and say, “What did I do? Did I stand up for feminism in the House? I did not”. I think that is a shame.

We all make our choices in the House, and I am sorry that the member has made this choice.

Madam Speaker, I find my colleague's comments very unacceptable and undemocratic, but he is entitled to his opinion.

Gender equity is a laudable and necessary objective and one which we support wholeheartedly. In working toward this goal, however, we must select the most effective way of achieving it and it will happen. As all members know, the government will, in short order, be working with the other parties of the House in the form of a special all-party committee, which will be mandated to examine a variety of reforms to our electoral system, including other electoral systems, such as preferential ballots or proportional representation. My colleague's concerns will be addressed when we do this.

In other words, Canada's electoral system for the next election is still unknown. I believe that under these circumstances, it is premature to impose a legislated quota.

Madam Speaker, I would have gladly cancelled this adjournment debate had I seen some action or sign that we were heading in the right direction between the time I asked the question and today. Nothing has happened.

I will provide some background information for those interested in the appointment of an ombudsman to monitor the activities of our mining companies operating abroad and to conduct investigations as needed.

I became aware of this issue in 2009, when the Conservative government introduced its first strategy for promoting corporate social responsibility, a Conservative-style initiative, one that was voluntary, non-binding, and had no teeth, and that seemed to be more a symbolic gesture than a real measure.

At the time, the NDP and the Liberals both expressed serious reservations, which we reiterated in 2014, when this same strategy was revised.

In the 41st Parliament, the previous Parliament, the NDP introduced a solid bill sponsored by my former colleague, Ève Péclet, who I now have the pleasure of naming, to establish a real ombudsman that would have real investigative powers.

With regard to the bill itself, let me reiterate again that it is a very well-intended piece of legislation.

After the Liberals were elected in 2015, there was an evening of lobbying with our main international development partners. Once again, the Liberals hinted that the creation of the position of corporate social responsibility ombudsman for extractive companies was imminent. However, today, it is clear that no such bill is in the works.

In a meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I had the pleasure of discussing this matter with the Minister of International Development, who answered one of my questions by saying, “We aren't there yet, but I wouldn't want us to go backwards.” Since then, it has been radio silence.

My question is simple: what is going on with the appointment of a corporate social responsibility ombudsman?

David LamettiLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his interest in this very important issue, which is sure to become even more important during our term.

Inclusive economic growth that benefits everyone is a priority for Canada, and we expect our businesses operating abroad to do so in a responsible manner, while respecting human rights and all applicable laws, as well as in a manner that is environmentally sound and socially responsible. Canada committed to corporate social responsibility quite some time ago, particularly through our efforts to develop and advance international recognized standards for corporate responsibility. This includes our efforts with the OECD.

We understand that how our companies do business abroad has a profound impact on Canada's reputation. Canadian businesses operating abroad must show leadership when it comes to developing responsible international business practices for the well-being of the inhabitants of the planet. In that regard, the Canadian extractive industry plays a pivotal role. The fact that Canadian mining companies operate all over the globe means there is considerable potential for them to demonstrate responsible practices. Those practices could be a key to improving the lives of people and communities.

We made it clear that all companies must reflect Canadian values in their conduct abroad. Nevertheless, we recognize that companies and communities sometimes need help to make sure that projects are good for both the company and the people. Our government is evaluating the role of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor and looking for ways to strengthen it. We are giving a lot of thought to mechanisms that will support Canada's demonstrable and practical global leadership in corporate social responsibility.

We must remember that Canada's existing corporate social responsibility framework is based on advancement of recognized international standards; on building networks and partnerships with stakeholders; and on facilitating dispute resolution between Canadian mining sector companies and those affected by their operations abroad.

On that last point, we need to talk about the two dispute resolution mechanisms currently in place. The first is through Canada's National Contact Point, which was set up in 2000 as part of our commitment to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and can be used in all sectors. The second is the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, a role created as part of Canada's corporate social responsibility strategy for the extractive sector abroad.

With this in mind, the government is currently reviewing its approach to corporate social responsibility in an international context while actively listening to civil society and companies operating abroad.

We remain committed to showing real international leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his answer, but unfortunately it is rather evasive. It seems to be full of good intentions and rhetoric, but very indicative of a step backward in the approach.

If I understand what my colleague is saying correctly, the government is looking at how it might improve the Conservative approach by having discussions. However, during the 41st Parliament, the Liberals and New Democrats were united in calling for an ombudsman who would have investigative powers and the power to influence.

Obviously not all Canadian industries promoting Canadian values abroad can be painted with the same brush as being part of the problem. It is a matter of having an important and influential mechanism that can be used for the handful of businesses that are not only making Canada look bad abroad, but are also causing major harm in countries where they are using natural resources.

We are going over all the options. When we look at ways to enhance Canada's approach to corporate social responsibility, we have a lot of tools available to us.

We are thinking about the 150 Canadian trade offices abroad, facilitating dialogue for conflict resolution, fostering the environment for responsible business practices, and promoting recognized corporate social responsibility policies, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

We have a corporate social responsibility framework in place, as well as two dispute resolution mechanisms offered through Canada's National Contact Point and the extractive sector corporate social responsibility counsellor.

Canada is taking action. We will continue to assess the situation and work on improving it.

Madam Speaker, I am hoping to get better answers during my adjournment debate than my colleague from Trois-Rivières got.

I want to talk about the fact that documents relating to TransCanada's energy east project were submitted in English only. On May 19, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage about the many ways TransCanada's energy east pipeline proposal violated the Official Languages Act.

My questions coincided with the publication of a report by the Commissioner of Official Languages that identified grievous instances of non-compliance with the Official Languages Act and found that major work was needed to improve the situation.

The energy east project application to the National Energy Board was submitted in English only, which is of course totally unacceptable. Pursuant to the Official Languages Act and bilingualism, both languages, French and English, are equal. Neither is superior to the other. Accordingly, documents must be submitted in both official languages at the same time.

That is why, on May 19, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who, I would remind hon. members, is also the minister responsible for official languages, how she justified the fact that francophones had to wait a month longer to have access to the document in their language. All these months later, the matter is still not closed.

This is not a new situation. On December 15, 2014, the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement, the CQDE, had already started tackling certain problems. The centre does excellent work, not only on this file, to have the official languages respected, but also on the environment, particularly on the striped chorus frog file, which I followed closely. This centre managed to protect the striped chorus frog in Quebec and we must congratulate it on its excellent work.

The CQDE made a request to the National Energy Board concerning a TransCanada document the NEB posted on its website in French. Instead of posting all the documents, totalling some 39,000 pages in French, the NEB posted only a six-page summary.

Just imagine that for a moment. A francophone concerned about a TransCanada pipeline receives nothing more than a six-page summary, while anglophones have complete access to 39,000 pages of documents in preparation for possibly taking part in public consultations.

This is totally unacceptable. The Liberal government said it would reevaluate the environmental assessment process and that it would remove it from the National Energy Board in order to have a more sound, more serious, and stricter assessment process. Unfortunately, that has not happened yet.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his question. The Government of Canada, and all Canadians, firmly believe that access to federal services in the language of their choice is a fundamental issue.

We firmly believe that Canadians who want to access public information from federal institutions must be able to do so in the language of their choice. We all know that every Canadian has the right to communicate with the government and federal institutions in the language of their choice, and that federal institutions are required to provide services in full compliance with the Official Languages Act. We also believe that both official languages are on an equal footing.

In this case, the National Energy Board had asked TransCanada to provide a consolidated version of its application in both official languages, which TransCanada agreed to do. The French version of the document is available.

Last May, in the House, the Minister of Natural Resources answered questions about this during question period. He said that he regretted the amount of time TransCanada needed to provide the French version of these documents.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage has already told the House, our government continues to work on the measures needed to ensure that all Canadians have access to these documents in the official language of their choice. Since he is a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the hon. member knows that our government believes in the importance of encouraging and fostering the use of the official languages in all of Canadian society and in all sectors of activity.

We are therefore coordinating our efforts to continually improve services to Canadians. We are actively working with theTreasury Board president to ensure that all federal services are provided in full compliance with the Official Languages Act.

Madam Speaker, yes, the documents are in French, but that was not the case until a month later. That is hardly equality.

Furthermore, the French version is not on equal footing with the English version. In other words, the English text is the one considered valid, while the French text is merely for reference, because it cannot be relied upon, when both documents should have the same value when they are tabled.

The Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement is still fighting this in the courts, because it wants both documents, the English version and the French version, to be recognized as having the same value, with both having the same force of law during the hearings that will take place. At present, one is considered superior to the other, which goes against the spirit of the Official Languages Act.

Madam Speaker, our government is determined to promote and foster the use of both official languages throughout Canada, especially in communications and service to the public.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is mandated to work with the president of the Treasury Board to ensure that all federal services are provided in full compliance with the Official Languages Act. We are fully committed to achieving this objective across government.

I would again like to remind members that the National Energy Board has already taken the initiative of requesting French copies of these documents and that TransCanada agreed to this request.

We will ensure that Canadians have equal access to these documents in the language of their choice.